The sport of politics. The politics of sport.

Jump to Comments

South Carolina last night became the first Southern state in the presidential primary season to vote, and South Carolinians sent a message to the Democratic Party: if you want credibility with today’s voters, don’t turn the clock back on racial politics.

The big winner was Barack Obama, garnering 55 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary. It was no surprise that Obama inspired 78 percent of black voters to side with him. But what was perhaps more notable was the approximately 12 to 14 percent “bump” he got in white voters, whose support had stood at a paltry 10 percent only days ago thanks to the efforts of the Clinton Ambition Machine.

Hillary Clinton had gotten the ball rolling by trying to not-so-subtly brand Obama as a “black candidate” –rather than simply a “candidate” — when she made a point of noting that Martin Luther King’s efforts at attaining greater equality for blacks in the 1950s and early 60s would have been fruitless without (white) president Lyndon Johnson. (Why did her comment have racial undertones? Because she wouldn’t have had any material to work with if Johnson had been black.)

Here’s what I heard in Clinton’s message: Remember, black people, you can’t get anywhere without whites making it happen for you. As if blacks don’t already know how much sympathy they need from members of the cultural majority simply to be assured a minimum of respect from that cultural majority. Hubby and former ex-prez Bill Clinton had already labeled Obama’s POV on the war a “fairy tale,” suggesting that the “black candidate” was naive about international affairs and therefore nowhere near as sophisticated as “people like us.”

Bill further tried to pigeonhole Obama as an old-school liberal leader (read: culturally — or racially – one-dimensional) by suggesting that Obama’s support in South Carolina was comparable to Jesse Jackson’s primary victories in the state in 1984 and 1988. But voters who’ve been paying attention know that Obama is a totally different guy than Jackson. He has no interest in playing a “black leader,” but rather in being an “American leader.”

Obama also has no interest in seeing the Democratic Party prolong its losing streak vis-a-vis the presidency, which is why he has made a point of saying that crossover Republicans and Independent voters are welcome under his tent.

Hillary Clinton went after Obama at the Democratic debate Monday night for praising Ronald Reagan. As I watched her try to paint Obama as a “Republican-lover,” I thought: How stupid. What I heard in Obama’s comments about Reagan, the appeal of Republican ideas and the Republican Party’s challenge of conventional wisdom during the 1980s and 1990s was an appreciation for their STRATEGY — not their POLICIES.

This is precisely the ground I cover in my book, “Democrats in the Red Zone: an Independent voter’s take on the game of political perception.” I gave a copy to Obama’s communications team in New Hampshire, and I sure hope he got it. Why? Because Obama understands, as I and a growing number of my fellow Americans do, that the Democrats need a new base: a base guided by the dynamic political center, not the deluded apologists for outdated liberal assumptions.

Democrats at an X-roads

Hillary and Bill Clinton have not simply tarnished their own, respective images: they have made their joint goal VERY CLEAR. They just wanna be president. Their ambition has trumped even the need to preserve the integrity of the Democratic Party in its modern compact with black voters, wherein Democrats — thanks, it’s true, largely to Lyndon Johnson — had been judged as the party that truly cared about black concerns.

The Clintons showed me how little respect they had for the dignity of black people as individuals; that, in their eyes, black folks were just a “voting bloc” the party needs to keep a hold of, even if it means using political extortion. Strong language, I know. But what I saw and heard from the Clintons in South Carolina was an attempt to threaten blacks with further marginalization if they sided with a “black” candidate. It must have been one of the saddest moments of truth for legions of former (Bill) Clinton supporters. People like me.

The irony is that the Clintons’ assumptions about the prejudices of voters today may turn out to be misplaced. I would not be surprised if their tactics, which seem to have backfired on them in South Carolina, continue to undermine Hillary’s campaign heading into Super Tuesday.

(How disgusted was I with the Clintons? I actually caught myself fantasizing about voting for Mitt Romney if Clinton were his opponent.)

Those in America who want to see the Democrats establish a winning game plan need to help move the party toward Obama’s more inclusive — and politically realistic — vision. Whether they realize it or not, Democratic voters are faced with a historic decision: to stay where they’ve been, circling their leftist wagons and sticking their heads in the sand; or taking the blinders off, opening their minds and living in the present and future.

That present and future could mean victory for a rebranded Democratic Party – a party where race is beside the point, because the candidates don’t make a point of race; where good ideas are welcomed, no matter what part of the political spectrum they come from; where more “average” citizens help drive the party’s direction and the “elites” responsible for repeated failures on the political playing field no longer call the shots.

Candidates who rely on the votes of narrow-minded, polarized, fearful and misguided elements in their midst will not do well in a political landscape where the winds of unity and inclusion are blowing. Democratic voters must decide whether they will allow themselves to be swept along by those winds, as they sow spring fields with the seeds of positive change — or whether they will stick with what they think they know, even if it leads to failure.

Yours Truly, A.F. Cook